ons 2010-07-21 klockan 11:48 -0700 skrev Jesse Keating:
The other option is to make the dist translation change on the other
branches too, so that future f12 and f13 builds have a dist of .f12
and .f13
I was just going to suggest this.
f1x means built from git, fc1x means cvs.
/Alexander
Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com writes:
master - origin/master
f13 - origin/f13/master
f12 - origin/f12/master
Please don't. The remote and local branches should be named the same so
that git checkout -t origin/whatever does the right thing.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com
On 07/22/2010 10:19 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jesse Keatingjkeat...@redhat.com writes:
master - origin/master
f13 - origin/f13/master
f12 - origin/f12/master
Please don't. The remote and local branches should be named the same so
that git checkout -t origin/whatever does the right
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 11:48 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 07/21/2010 01:55 AM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 22:15 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 07/20/2010 08:55 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
If rawhide development is supposed to happen on origin/master, then how
On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 10:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com writes:
master - origin/master
f13 - origin/f13/master
f12 - origin/f12/master
Please don't. The remote and local branches should be named the same so
that git checkout -t origin/whatever does
Jan Vcelak jvce...@redhat.com writes:
On Thursday 22 July 2010 10:19:20, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com writes:
master - origin/master
f13 - origin/f13/master
f12 - origin/f12/master
Please don't. The remote and local branches should be named the same so
that
Using names like f13, el5, and so forth would also keep dist-git
consistent with git branch naming conventions. If we were to do
something like that we might as well just use the value of %{dist}.
But that's just too obviously right for us to be allowed to do it!
That was going to be
Dne 21.7.2010 08:22, Roland McGrath napsal(a):
What does manually mean, anyway? A database query and a short script?
Isn't this something which automatic QA process could do very easily?
Matěj
--
He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for
support, rather than illumination.
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 22:15 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 07/20/2010 08:55 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 7/20/2010 19:13, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
BTW, while typing the above, I have noted that master or devel or
f13 are quite easy to type, while F-13 with capital letter and
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 10:55 +0200, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 22:15 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 07/20/2010 08:55 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
Using names like f13, el5, and so forth would also keep dist-git
consistent with git branch naming conventions. If
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 23:22 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
Using names like f13, el5, and so forth would also keep dist-git
consistent with git branch naming conventions. If we were to do
something like that we might as well just use the value of %{dist}.
But that's just too obviously
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 11:19 +0200, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
Ugly potential fix for this ugly issue: Patch rpm and yum to compare
N-V-R.fc13 exactly like N-V-R.f13, and carry that patch until F-15.
That would be ... hard.
And ugly doesn't even begin to describe it. Also IMO using only a
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 10:08 -0400, James Antill wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 11:19 +0200, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
Ugly potential fix for this ugly issue: Patch rpm and yum to compare
N-V-R.fc13 exactly like N-V-R.f13, and carry that patch until F-15.
That would be ... hard.
And
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 10:08 -0400, James Antill wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 11:19 +0200, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
Ugly potential fix for this ugly issue: Patch rpm and yum to compare
N-V-R.fc13 exactly like N-V-R.f13, and carry that patch until F-15.
That would be ... hard.
And
On Wednesday, July 21, 2010 11:19:54 Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 10:55 +0200, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 22:15 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 07/20/2010 08:55 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
Using names like f13, el5, and so forth would also
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 16:39 +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
another less ugly (but still ugly) solution would be adding:
Obsoletes: N-V-R.fc13
Obsoletes: N-V-R.fc12
in koji automatically for the same NVR as the package has, but I don't know
if
this would not make yum's depsolver cry
Even
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/21/2010 01:55 AM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 22:15 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 07/20/2010 08:55 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 7/20/2010 19:13, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
BTW, while typing the above, I have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/20/2010 11:22 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
Using names like f13, el5, and so forth would also keep dist-git
consistent with git branch naming conventions. If we were to do
something like that we might as well just use the value of %{dist}.
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 00:33, Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com wrote:
My opinion is that a branch called F-n/master is the nicest thing.
Actually, all else being equal, I'd probably go for it being called
fn/master, since gratuitous caps and punctuation in branch names is
not a normal git
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:07 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
I've been struggling with a particular wrinkle in dist-git, how fedpkg
is supposed to reliably discover what Fedora release a packager is
working on.
In other words: How does fedpkg map the currently checked out git HEAD
to a Fedora
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:09:50PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Seriously? Nobody has an opinion here? Or will this just be another
case of ZOMG WHY DID YOU DO THIS STUPID THING as soon as it rolls out...
I'm not around enough right now to be able to test anything :-(.
I also don't really
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/20/2010 05:52 AM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 17:07 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
I've been struggling with a particular wrinkle in dist-git, how fedpkg
is supposed to reliably discover what Fedora release a packager
That said, I don't think I'd use either HEAD or master as the branch name
since they both have some sort of association with how git itself works
unless the name actually matches 100% with the concept that you're trying to
express here.
This is nothing more or less than our convention for git
My first idea would be for fedpkg to do something similar to the
following when trying to find out the target to build for:
0. If --target F-13 is given, use that as target.
If not, continue.
1. Determine the current git branch ($origbranch=$curbranch).
2. Check 'git config
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 09:03 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:09:50PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Seriously? Nobody has an opinion here? Or will this just be another
case of ZOMG WHY DID YOU DO THIS STUPID THING as soon as it rolls out...
I'm not around enough
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/20/2010 03:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 09:03 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:09:50PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Seriously? Nobody has an opinion here? Or will this just be another
case of
Roland McGrath wrote:
My first suggestion was not to have the magical leading F-n/
matching at all. Rather, just have fedpkg front-end commands set and
show the state of branch.SOMEBRANCH.fedora-target settings. e.g.,
'fedpkg checkout foo' would both do 'git checkout foo' and set the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/20/2010 03:32 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Roland McGrath wrote:
My first suggestion was not to have the magical leading F-n/
matching at all. Rather, just have fedpkg front-end commands set and
show the state of
On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 17:32 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Here's one nice feature I'd like to see for a simple scenario of when
upstream releases a new stable version:
1. Edit the 'master' branch spec file.
2. git commit my change.
3. git rebase my F-* branches to master.
4. Submit
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Christof Damian chris...@damian.net wrote:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 00:33, Roland McGrath rol...@redhat.com wrote:
My opinion is that a branch called F-n/master is the nicest thing.
Actually, all else being equal, I'd probably go for it being called
fn/master,
On 7/20/2010 19:13, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
BTW, while typing the above, I have noted that master or devel or
f13 are quite easy to type, while F-13 with capital letter and
hyphen is relatively complicated. Perhaps that could be an argument when
choosing branch names.
Using names like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/20/2010 08:55 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 7/20/2010 19:13, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote:
BTW, while typing the above, I have noted that master or devel or
f13 are quite easy to type, while F-13 with capital letter and
hyphen is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/16/10 5:07 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
I've been struggling with a particular wrinkle in dist-git, how fedpkg
is supposed to reliably discover what Fedora release a packager is
working on.
In the CVS world, we used a branch file. This is OK,
My opinion is that a branch called F-n/master is the nicest thing.
Actually, all else being equal, I'd probably go for it being called
fn/master, since gratuitous caps and punctuation in branch names is
not a normal git convention. (But I only really care about the
structure of the names, not the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've been struggling with a particular wrinkle in dist-git, how fedpkg
is supposed to reliably discover what Fedora release a packager is
working on.
In the CVS world, we used a branch file. This is OK, but I think it
would be cleaner if we didn't
35 matches
Mail list logo
